What a child does or does not do at some point in the future does not obviate a parents responsibilities. Feeding your child being one of the most basic responsibility. Again a safety net for those who need it but not for those who can afford it.

I've no doubt that the benefits are there but these are from having a school meal, not having a free school meal. Make school meals compulsory and you'll see the same benefit without having to pass the cost onto the tax payer.

It wouldn't cost you £15 per week though would it. It would cost £15 less whatever it costs you now to provide those packed lunches. Besides these are the people who are going to be caring for you in your dotage so is that a price worth paying?

Again a safety net for those who need it but not for those who can afford it.

So far fewer kids take school meals, including fewer of those who are eligible for free school meals (possibly because all their mates aren't having school lunches or something). So the current situation is worse at providing a safety net for those who need it. And the kids who need it were the ones who benefited most from this.

The position on what is provided for kids at schools and what is brought in is essentially arbitrary. Most people would assume that books were provided in schools, but on the face of it, there is no real reason why books (essential for learning) are provided, when food (essential for learning) isn't. There's no reason parents who can afford to shouldn't pay for their kid's reading books. Basically there isn't a real moral reason for parents to pay for some things and not for others, it is just how society happens to have evolved.

So personally I think we should just treat this as the same as any other spending on educational or health interventions; rather than take some kind of moral stance on the rights and wrongs of giving people food, we should look at the improvement in outcomes from it versus the cost, and judge it on that. Looking at the study, it at least rules out the obvious 'make the safety net a little bit bigger' approach to free school meals, leaving you with two choices, keep the current approach, or free meals for all, depending on whether you think the learning improvements in the pilot studies suggest that it is worthwhile to spend that amount of money.

Looking at the study, it at least rules out the obvious 'make the safety net a little bit bigger' approach to free school meals, leaving you with two choices, keep the current approach, or free meals for all, depending on whether you think the learning improvements in the pilot studies suggest that it is worthwhile to spend that amount of money.

There is a third option of making the meals compulsory with the costs borne by the parents, excepting those who qualify for free meals. You get the same benefit in terms if educational achievement without the tax payer having to pick up the tab. What else do parents want? For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too? What about evening meals, weekends, holidays? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

This scheme was originally trialled in every school in Co Durham. My sons school being one of the schools. Now he has had a school dinner every lunchtime regardless. The take up for the poorer children was almost 100% when they were free, meaning that the crap they were fed in their packed lunches was down to cost. Surely we owe it to the kids to provide them with at least one nutritional meal a day. This is one of those schemes that could actually save money in the long run.

kimbers - Member
Im just trying to figure out what kind of person begurdges their taxes being spent on feeding children

I don't think anyone begrudges paying taxes that go towards feeding kids whose parents can't afford to do so properly themselves.
I think the issue is that there are parents out there who can afford to pay for their kids meals, but won't have to as it will be covered by this 'blanket school meals' thing.
And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

I like the 'won't someone thing of the children' style of your post though.....

Schools were never designed to replace responsible parenting, yet this is what they are ever increasing turning into.

Some people seem to have never heard of the phrase in loco parentis.

And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

I imagine that as with the winter fuel allowance, the cost of means testing negates any saving.

What if it was proved cheaper to provide the meals across the board rather than a system of means testing? What would the consensus be then? Would we still want means testing to ensure that none of our precious tax revenues weren't spent mistakenly on some undeserving child purely as a point of principle?

Don't forget this is only aimed at Reception / Y1 / Y2. Not all children.

If it was demonstrated that it was cheaper to provide free meals for everyone rather than just those on low incomes (in total not on a per child basis) then I would welcome that. I am not aware of any such evidence though.

My taxes pay for all sorts of school related costs, I don't mind paying a bit more to ensure kids get a good meal. I wonder if given the shite some people eat maybe if the kids understand a bit more about eating healthily they'll be more likely to want to eat well later in life?

gonefishin - Member
If it was demonstrated that it was cheaper to provide free meals for everyone rather than just those on low incomes (in total not on a per child basis) then I would welcome that. I am not aware of any such evidence though.

but it was demonstrated in one of the studies above (and most other studies on similar programes) that you get a higher uptake for the poorer kids if theres a blanket programe that covers everyone rather than just targeting those in need

Coyote - Member
What if it was proved cheaper to provide the meals across the board rather than a system of means testing? What would the consensus be then? Would we still want means testing to ensure that none of our precious tax revenues weren't spent mistakenly on some undeserving child purely as a point of principle?

Yeah. as grum says perhaps it is because administering a system to define who needs help and who doesn't might be prohibitively expensive in relation to the amount of 'benefit' dished out. And of course in that case it makes sense to apply it in a 'blanket' manner.

Coyote - your posts seem to be very snipey towards those who are questioning this.
I can't recall seeing one post that says any of the children are 'underserving' of a proper meal. Rather, that for those whose parents can afford it, the meal should perhaps come from the parent, rather than the state? There has been no mention of whether a certain child is more deserving than another of a proper meal.
I, for one took a while to actually comment on this as there seems to be a few people getting quite high & mighty, even agrgessive about the whole thing.

Don't forget this is only aimed at Reception / Y1 / Y2. Not all children.

So, in a similar vein to your 'what would the consensus be?' question.......if it could be proven that if parents who can afford to pay for their own kids' meals did so, the scheme could be extended to cover more years, so more kids who perhaps would go without got nutritious meals what would be your opinion of that? Would you welcome the more wealthy parents paying their own way, so more kids in need could be helped out?

but it was demonstrated in one of the studies above (and most other studies on similar programes) that you get a higher uptake for the poorer kids if theres a blanket programe that covers everyone rather than just targeting those in need

That's not proof that it is cheaper, that's just a higher uptake. Not even close to the same thing. Besides what I've suggested is a blanket program, make the meals compulsary. It isn't that different to what has been suggested it just involves the parents who don't qualify for free meals having to pay for it. I can't see how that is unreasonable.

What do you suggest as a cheaper way of making sure these children are fed? Plus see above.

And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

There is an economic argument to say that those parents that can afford it already pay more tax than those that can't so are, in effect, subsidising themselves. The number of children that would benefit is tiny compared to the number of taxpayers in the UK so the relative cost to you as an individual is pretty insignificant.

Also, in many cases, it's not just about he food. I was amazed by how many kids in our school rarely sat down and ate as a family at home. On occasion, the school invites parents into have lunch with their kid(s) i.e. a Fathers Day lunch. it's on days such as this that some kids have school meals that don't normally and at the last couple I attended it was incredible to see how many didn't (couldn't?) use a knife & fork properly - even in Key Stage 2. Watching the teachers engaging both parents & kids in conversation was really nice to see and the littl'uns in particular seemed to really take to it.

It was me that said £15. Partly through rounding up to make my argument sound better and partly because mine only has school dinners once in a while so I'm not 100% certain what it costs... I thought it was between £2.50 and £3...

Nope. In fact:
1. Several studies show that switching to unsaturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. There is no significant link between saturated fat and heart disease.
2. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and colon cancer.
3. Ovarian cancer risk only increases for diets very high in saturated fat.
4. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and prostate cancer.
5. Studies are conflicting - some show a link, others show the opposite. There is no consensus that saturated fats reduce bone density.

There is a third option of making the meals compulsory with the costs borne by the parents, excepting those who qualify for free meals.

Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme. You'll get parents refusing to pay because they can do packed lunch cheaper - what would you do in that instance? Sanction them? Just gets into more levels of complexity.

What else do parents want?

It's not about what parents want, it's what some children need.

For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too? What about evening meals, weekends, holidays? A line has to be drawn somewhere.